onewheeldave
-
Posts
5,922 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Events
Articles
Posts posted by onewheeldave
-
-
4 minutes ago, Pettytom said:
Or, alternatively, get a tv licence.
Or, just don’t watch live TV.
Its not that difficult.
There is no difficulty- just close the door
-
2 hours ago, Anna B said:
I have experience of this. I was prescribed drugs for a heart problem, but the doctor was unaware of another drug I was on.
When he did realise he phoned me up full of apologies, and asked me to come down to the surgery straight away to
surrender the drugs.
Yes- drug interactions can be very serious, and, as time goes on and more drugs are coming into use the problem gets bigger. It is beyond the scope of individual GPs to know all the possible interactions so they have to rely on the automated admin systems to flag up bad combinations- due to extensive personal experience I have little faith in those systems.
Personally if I'm considering taking a drug I've been prescribed, I do my own research, and, on more than one occasion I've found out something relevant that my GP was totally unaware of.
Concerning the vaccine, I'm suprised that it hasn't been tested for interactions with drugs, and, a bit perplexed, as it seems reasonable to assume that a large portion of those classed as vulnerable, are going to be on multiple prescribed drugs.
-
2 hours ago, Anna B said:
But I don't think it shouldn't be compulsory nor used coercively. People should have the right to choose for themselves.
I agree fully.
-
I'm not going to waste my time trying to get through to people who are OK with single mothers being jailed over the TV license.
The main socially useful thing I can do here is point out that there are several causal factors that lead to these people being jailed, the most relevant one of which is that they do not know their rights.
If they did know their rights they wouldn't end up being fined or jailed, even though they have a tv.
So, if you do object to the BBCs policy, if you think it is wrong that they demand their fee even for people who don't use their tv for BBC, if you think it is socially wrong for single mothers to be jailed over the license, etc, then spread the word-
Anyone who gets a knock on the door and opens it to a license inspector, be aware that you are under no obligation to let them in, or even to talk to them. Simply shut the door, and go about your business.
They can't do a thing about it, other than sent intimidating letters and, technically, apply for a search warrant- the chances of a judge giving them one is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Getting that message out to potential victims will save them from fines and jail- IMO a far better use of your time than wasting it on the likes of these threads, futiley trying to reason with license supporters.
-
1 hour ago, Longcol said:
And nobody is going to make it compulsory and people will have a choice regarding vaccination.
https://fullfact.org/online/mandatory-vaccine-plans/
"You can’t be forced to get a vaccine
Vaccines are not mandatory in the UK, as we have written before. The government’s own guidelines on vaccinations says individuals “must be given enough information to enable them to make a decision before they can give consent.
We’ve written more about the rules surrounding consent to vaccination in the UK here."
No one is under the delusion that you can be forcibly vaccinated- it is currently illegal in the UK to forcibly vaccinate someone.
The concern is whether the vaccine may be made compulsory in the future, and laws can be changed to allow that.
A year ago if it was suggested that in a few months the public would be ordered to stay in their homes, have to join queues stretching the full length of supermarkets to get food, and then have to wear a mask to enter public buildings, you would have been laughed at. Especially if you added that the majority of the public would not only go along with it, but demand yet more such restrictions and call out for anyone not complying to be fined and/or locked up. Oh, and anyone protesting against it all, or trying to continue to trade would be fined £10,000..
All that has come to pass, and a lot more. I have no doubt that if the voluntary take up of the vaccine is deemed too low by government appointed 'experts' that the compulsion will commence. It may not be in the full form of it being illegal to not be vaccinated, but certainly the insiduous form of compulsion of the type the Chinese govt inflict on their citizens, of not being able to access travel, restaraunts etc without a 'health passport' proving you've had the vaccine, will be on the cards.
-
8 minutes ago, Pettytom said:
You can’t go to prison for non-payment of the tv licence.
So, “brutalised” is a totally inappropriate term.
They go to prison for non-payment of the consequent magistrates fines
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4130060/More-women-men-jailed-TV-licenses.html
"Some 20 women in England and Wales went to prison in 2015 over their TV licence, up from 11 the year before, revealed figures released by the Ministry of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act."
-
3 hours ago, Arnold_Lane said:
Most convicted burglars are men. Is that unintended gender discrimination?
Good point.
3 hours ago, Arnold_Lane said:Laughable that you not only defend Car boot's pompous and silly stance but also use the word "brutalised."
Some of those women are single mothers who end up in prison- I think 'brutalised' is an appropriate term.
-
5 minutes ago, West 77 said:
The Government had to gamble on pre ordering vaccines before they knew they would work and be approved otherwise the UK would have been at the back of a long global queue to receive vaccines once they were proved to work. The Government have not rushed the approval of the Pfizer vaccine because it's been the responsibility of the MHRA to do the work necessary to do so. If you don't trust the word of the Government then you should listen to and read what Professor Van Tam says about the vaccine situation.
Professor Van Tam is keeping up the government tradition of issuing threats and scaremongering-
"The public should take the COVID-19 vaccine when it is offered to them if they want to see an end to social distancing, one of the government's top medical officers has said."
2 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:So, as you aren’t a doctor you can’t actually explain why it might be a concern but raised it anyway perhaps to make people feel anxious - as though testing hadn’t be thorough.
That about the size of it Dave?
No, it is more that a potentially compulsory vaccine that hasn't been tested for interactions with drugs does not need further explanation as to why intelligent people who think for themselves may have an issue with it. You do not need to be a doctor to understand the point
-
7 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:
I notice the document states:
"4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
No interaction studies have been performed."3 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:As a medical doctor can you explain why that is a concern?
It was addressed to those who aren't anti-vax but who like to check things out for themselves rather than rely on appeal to authority, who may be concerned that no studies on possible interactions with other drugs have been done [according to the document].
It may also be useful for those anxious of the vaccine been made compulsory but who don't want it, as they may feel comforted [as I do] that there's a potential case for exemption if they happen to be taking a drug, given that, as things stand, no studies on drug interactions with the vaccine seem to have been done.
-
17 minutes ago, MuteWitness said:
It is unknown how the vaccine will effect breast feeding and fertility - another reason some people may not want it.
I notice the document states:
"4.5 Interaction with other medicinal products and other forms of interaction
No interaction studies have been performed." -
1 hour ago, Arnold_Lane said:
Vaccination means we won’t need to wear masks any more which will improve the mental health of those you say are affected by it. That means fewer suicides, right?
Mental health damage doesn't necessary dissapear when the stressor is removed- where compulsory masking and some of the other lockdown measures are concerned, for many the damage has been done.
And for many of them, there is now a 'second wave' of mental health issues due to the fear of a compulsory vaccine [which would include compulsion in the sense of not being able to access travel, restaraunts, concerts, work without a 'health passport' proving vaccination]- this especially applying to those who are conspiacy theorists as well as those who are not anti-vax, but who oppose compulsory vaccinations, and those who question the vaccines safety/long term safety.
1 minute ago, PRESLEY said:According to various Scientist over the last couple of days, the word is, minimum side effects if any at all. A couple of people told me the Flu jab made them feel sick ect, then other people seem to be OK, Me included, I suppose its a case of Horses for Coarses.
That obviously doesn't include long term side effects.
-
3 minutes ago, Kidorry said:
Why obviously? I have not heard of any test to see if it has worked or not. I am not talking about the trials.
One thing none of the safety tests for the vaccine can show, is long term side effects. Part of the reason safety testing for drugs takes so long [as did vaccine safety testing till now] is that long term side effects have a chance of manifesting- this cannot happen with a vaccince developed in less than a year.
-
On 30/11/2020 at 11:07, alchresearch said:
Not this rubbish again. You've been shown on numerous posts that the only reason this happens is because more women are at home during the day when the licence people call.
If only there was some way they could avoid this. I don't know how, maybe BUY A LICENCE?
I'd say a better way would be to simply close the door on any license inspector who turns up and ignore their intimidating letters- there's not a thing they can do about it.
Fact remains, as car boot says-
"TV licence evasion was the most common offence for which females were convicted in 2019. In 2019, 74% of those convicted for TV licence evasion were female. This offence accounted for 30% of all female convictions, compared to 4% of male convictions."
Gender discrimination does not require intentionality, it is about results and consequences, and the results and consequences of BBC current policy, as seen from the above quote, is gender discrimination. In any other context where women where brutalised to this extent, the BBC might well be doing a documentary to highlight the injustice- clearly they won't in this instance.
-
21 hours ago, Anna B said:
Personally, I'd like to see some public figure - say Prince Charles and Camilla, or Prince William and Kate, publicly have the jab first to reassure people.
1 hour ago, Anna B said:Yes, you have a point. So it has to be someone with integrity that the public trusts.
Jeremy Vine has just suggested David Attenborough, which seems a good choice. And as I am always banging on about Jeremy Corbyn's integrity I feel duty bound to nominate him, although I'm well aware that would backfire spectacularly with some of the posters on here.... so maybe not the best choice.🙂
A lot of the public think for themselves now. I find it bizarre that anyome would judge the safety of a vaccine on the basis that a celebrity, whatever their level of integrity, 'had it first'
This would most especially apply to 'conspiracy theorists', and, those who are not anti-vax but are totally opposed to manditory vaccines and indeed anyone who bases their judgements on rationality and remembers similar stunts used in the past to assure the public that something is safe.
A prime example of which would be minister John Gummer during the mad cow disease epidemic, who, to reassure the public that British beef was 100% safe, fed his 4 year old Cordelia a hamburger on television!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/369625.stm
British beef went on to be banned for import by 84 countries, as they were not happy about the measures put in place in Britain and considered it to be unsafe to import
https://www.just-food.com/news/british-beef-banned-in-84-countries-says-government_id84114.aspx
-
1 hour ago, MuteWitness said:
apparently 5 reinfections world wide but they must think it is a risk or boris would not have isolated
mike yeadon was talking about vaccines - this may be of interest to you
It'll be interesting to see if it gets taken down like the other videos from TalkRadio.
Dr Yeadon talks a lot of sense here- interesting to see how, like anyone who questions the official narrative, he feels obliged to start by stressing he is not anti-vaccine [and gives evidence]. Glad that he is highly critical of mandetory vaccination and coercion/vaccine 'passports'.
2 hours ago, MuteWitness said:apparently 5 reinfections world wide but they must think it is a risk or boris would not have isolated
I think Boris isolated for political reasons, realising the damage done by other government officials who had broken the rules in terms of public opinion. He isolated because it was the rule; there was no real risk of him getting re-infected.
-
30 minutes ago, Anna B said:
So, a vaccine is close.
What is the reason antivaxers are against it? Serious question, there seem to be a lot of them out there, but I can't find a cohesive reason for their objections. Is it something I should worry about?
As always, many of the people being labelled as antivaxers are not at all antivax, but question or oppose a particular aspect of a vaccination, or oppose a particular vaccination- in this case there is a lot of opposition to the covid vaccination being made compulsory, either in the sense of 'everyone has to, by law, have it', or, 'you don't have to have it, but if you don't, you can't go to concerts/restaraunts/travel etc, etc.'
Many of those who object to the vaccine being compulsory, or who question the safety of this particular vaccine, will not be remotely 'antivaxxer', in that they happily use other vaccines, nevertheless, they will be labelled as such.
-
8 minutes ago, melthebell said:
Theres already panic buying, a mate posted a pic today that he took of people in front of him with trolleys full
That's not panic buying. There is a second full lockdown coming, which is insane, and could well lead to a total collapse of what is left of the economy. The lunatics are truly in charge of the asylum. Stocking up is a very sensible thing to do.
-
1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:
The lockdowns are certainly having a very negative effect on those with mental health issues, and their welfare has been a very low priority when coming to the decision to inflict a 2nd full lockdown on us.
3 minutes ago, melthebell said:NOBODY likes them, funnily enough when theres a massive negative thing happening (in this case a pandemic) then strangely negative results happen, thats life. now id like to hear YOUR solutions instead of lockdowns, social distancing, hand washing, mask wearing since they are so dangerous to people
When I said 'the lockdowns are certainly having a very negative effect on those with mental health issues' I was not saying that they don't like them; rather I was referring to the fact that it will cause breakdowns and suicides.
My solution is to not have a second full lockdown: to cease the scaremongering, protect those of the vulnerable who want to be protected, and let everyone else get on with their lives.
Cease destroying the economy, destroying people's jobs, harming those with mental health issues, allow those with cancer, pre-cancer, heart issues and all other medical conditions to access medical care.
Cease the censorship of experts and public who question the official narrative.
-
6 minutes ago, andyofborg said:
why? food shops remain open the supply chain is pretty stable no need for anything other than the usual shopping.
Well there certainly won't be any 'panic buying' this time around. However, anyone with a brain and a memory of the 1st lockdown is very likely to do some rational and intelligent stock purchasing to ensure that they can eat, wash and wipe their bottoms.
-
1 hour ago, melthebell said:
exactly...
NOBODY is scapegoating people with disabilities now get a grip
The lockdowns are certainly having a very negative effect on those with mental health issues, and their welfare has been a very low priority when coming to the decision to inflict a 2nd full lockdown on us.
-
29 minutes ago, Longcol said:
Would that be the Mike Yeadon who said in his paper in early September
https://lockdownsceptics.org/addressing-the-cv19-second-wave/
"The evidence presented in this paper indicates that there should be no expectation of a large scale ‘second wave’ with smaller localised outbreaks when the virus contacts pockets of previously uninfected populations."
Got that wrong didn't he.
And yes - the pandemic didn't end in June. I thought that would be obvious to anyone.
You should watch the video- he does go into depth as to how what is happening now is not a 'second wave'.
-
Just now, Mister M said:
Indeed.
No matter how bad things some think things are bad now, they need to read about the real horrors and privations suffered by those that lived through that era.
And they should also look into the immediate precursors- starting with the scapegoating of disabled minorities and the gradual erosion of civil liberties, especially those taken under the guise of a threat made more extreme by scaremongering.
-
23 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:
Didn't someone say earlier that there was to be a vote about the potential lockdown to happen next week before the anouncment? If so, what has happened to that vote now?!
21 minutes ago, Delayed said:Boris has said that a vote will still go ahead and these plans will start from Thursday IF agreed
Are you sure- I didn't catch that in his broadcast, and none of the summeries seem to be picking up on it.
2 minutes ago, melthebell said:I really wish youd lived through the second world war to see what REAL trauma looks like, this is a walk in the park compared, get a grip
I come from a minority group that has a nine times higher suicide rate than the national average [at the best of times] i.e. we tend to choose to die rather than endure the hostility inflicted upon us by this society which is created by, and for, neurotypicals who, in the main, seem unable to have empathy for any neurotype other than their own, and, again, that is in the best of times, and this current hysteria is only going to increase that.
I do know what real trauma looks like, and any assumption that it must involve bombs and mutilations is somewhat blinkered.
-
32 minutes ago, MuteWitness said:
Well how many will covid kill?
Whatever the number covid actually kills, you can be sure that the number of deaths the authorities attribute to covid, will be far, far higher. Especially when the true horrific consequences of deaths caused by their lockdown start to become apparent- at that point it is not in their best interests to pursue honesty with regard to the deaths attributed to covid.
Deaths with covid, are not deaths from covid, especially now we are starting to see how many people have had covid and remained completely free of symptoms.
9 minutes ago, melthebell said:in theory, going unchecked 100s of thousands? a million, 2 million? who knows
The same is true of course, of the numbers of deaths [caused by the lockdown] from mental health issues, unemployment, lack of access to medical treatment etc....... could be 100s of thousands? a million, 2 million? who knows?
Coronavirus - Part Two.
in Padders' Bar: General Discussions
Posted
And airlines-
https://fortune.com/2020/12/04/covid-19-vaccine-mandatory-required-airlines-to-fly/
the NHS has a solid track record of putting pressure on it's frontline staff to have the flu vaccine, so I wouldn't be surprised if they do the same with the covid vaccination.
perhaps most troubling of all is that even at this early stage, according to one poll, over a third of the public [37%] are in favour of it being made legally compulsory for all people in Britain to be vaccinated against COVID-19!
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/survey-results/daily/2020/12/02/8d518/3?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_3
To be clear, from what I can see no one on this thread is claiming that long term complications are likely, it's just important to be aware, I feel, that the safety tests that have been done cannot exclude long term complications in the way that previous vaccine safety testing has, because, by definition, that can only be done with tests that actually take place over a long term.